Some of us enjoy circles. Use whatever you like, but complaining A is not B is annoying.
In other words, it only sounds "annoying" because you seem to not understand why people would use a Unix operating system, and why Windows is not a suitable substitute.
(This is assuming they use macOS for its Unixness, but enough people use it for that reason that you probably shouldn't be telling people to just use Windows and "have fun". To your credit, you did also list Linux.)
Perhaps question if your old habits don't apply in a new context? And just because it's a WIMP UI you shouldn't expect it to work exactly like your former? That it's a new paradigm, with different metaphors, advantages and trade-offs?
Well, I didn't do that. I said Windows misses a desirable quality that macOS has, which makes it unacceptable as a substitute for macOS, specifically, if one relies on this desirable quality.
> Perhaps question if your old habits don't apply in a new context? And just because it's a WIMP UI you shouldn't expect it to work exactly like your former? That it's a new paradigm, with different metaphors, advantages and trade-offs?
Do you see how you just proved my point? According to your argument the answer would be "Well just don't desire that quality then." and, gee, I sure wish the whole tech world could just do that, it sounds so easy.
What you call "basic UX options" are highly opinionated personal views. I've used Macs since 2007 and haven't used a single one of the dozen or so "basic UX" tools people listed in the discussion.
The Mac’s thing has always been resizable overlapping windows with a menu bar at the top of the screen. If you’re hoping for a great tiling window manager, you’ll be disappointed. You can kind of get a poor man’s tiling setup with some hacks, but it’s not what the platform is about.
(and consider the fact that your circle company has added that square peg into their latest oval OS)
What I’m trying to convey here is that, while I hate Windows' mouse acceleration, to the point of being almost unusable to me, I don’t go on forums ranting about how ridiculous the amount of tweaking the OS requires to be usable.
There are fortunately other choices that fit my sensibilities much better. Why try to bend Microsoft to my particularities, especially when there are billions of perfectly happy users?
Ideally you’d want every OS to feature every possible preference setting. In practice, every feature increases the surface for bugs, loses focus on limited resources, puts the burden of choice on the user, etc. There needs to be a vision, an opinion, a personality to a product. You can either share that or look for a different platform.
> Why try to bend Microsoft to my particularities
Many reasons, but specific to this conversation: because it's not a square! Tweakability of these things is part of "essence" of a general purpose OS, so that's the flaw of your analogy, and why you have to resort to generic analogies instead of explaining how a specific tweak is bad
That’s where we differ.
>…instead of explaining how a specific tweak is bad
I have, but I’ll try one last time. Could Apple build an industry leading tiling window manager? Perhaps. Would that please most of its users? Probably not. Would it delay other more pressing demands? Surely.
